5.  The applicant was born in 1972. He is currently serving a prison sentence.
6.  From 18 July 2006 to 2 June 2009 the applicant was detained in custody pending trial in Tallinn Prison. Subsequently he was transferred to Viru Prison.
7.  According to the applicant, he stayed in cell no. 443 in the second block of the remand wing of Tallinn Prison. The applicant provided conflicting information concerning the size of the cell and its usable floor area. According to his initial submissions, cell no. 443 measured 15 square metres. Later he submitted that it measured 14.3 square metres. It accommodated six detainees including the applicant. The cell was equipped with bunk beds, a table, benches and a toilet, which left either 7.4 or 6.5 square metres (according to the applicant’s different submissions) of usable floor area in the cell.
8.  The detainees were locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of daily outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard measured 2.7 by 4.7 metres and was also used by other detainees. It had a concrete floor which could be wet or covered in snow according to the weather conditions and had no benches or sports equipment. Persons remanded in custody pending trial, like the applicant, had no access to a gym.
9.  The Government provided the following information about the applicant’s stay in different cells:
Number of cell
Number of days
Average number of inmates
Cell surface in square metres
Average surface per person in square metres
Percentage of time out of the total period of 1023 days
126
44
6
10.  The Government noted that the number of days was approximate as days of transfer were given a double entry (half-days were counted as whole).
11.  According to the Government, cell no. 443 – where the applicant spent most of his detention in Tallinn – measured 16.8 square metres, including a separate toilet area of 1.5 square metres. When the toilet space was deducted from the total cell surface area, this left 15.3 square metres of usable floor area for the detainees in the cell. The furnishings (two benches, a table, three bunk beds and closets for personal belongings) took up 6.906 square metres of the floor area and left 8.394 square metres of free floor space in the cell. For most of the time six detainees were kept in the cell (76% of the time), and for some periods four or five detainees were accommodated in cell no. 443. In respect of the occupancy of cell no. 443, the Government provided the following information:
Number of persons in cell no. 443 at the same time
6
5
4
Number of days with the above number of persons
698
196
27
Surface area per person in square metres (excluding toilet)
12.  Cell no. 443 had a window which could be partly opened and ensured natural light and ventilation in the cell. There was also both artificial lighting and artificial ventilation in the cell. The cell was equipped with central heating. There was a sink with cold running water and a toilet which was separated from the sleeping area by a door.
13.  The detainees had a possibility of one-hour daily outdoor exercises in yards measuring on average 3 by 5 metres.
14.  During his detention the applicant complained on several occasions of pain in his back and neck. He was examined by doctors and given painkillers. X-ray examinations on 2 April and 3 September 2008 revealed small signs of osteochondrosis.
15.  A neurologist who examined the applicant on 8 April 2008 noted in the applicant’s health card that his movements were free, he was able to rise on his heels and toes, was moving without any particular problems, and that there were no sensory problems. There was no need for any treatment for pain at the time. The doctor taught the applicant exercises and noted that he should move and exercise. The applicant was diagnosed with episodic pains in the lumbar region without signs of aggravation.
16.  The applicant was hospitalised in the prison hospital from 27 October to 10 November 2008. In respect of his back and neck pain he consulted a neurologist and a specialist rehabilitation doctor who also taught him relaxation, stretching and muscle strength exercises, as well as ergonomic positions and activities.
17.  According to the applicant, he had had no back problems before he was taken into custody. The Government referred to the applicant’s health card, according to which he had said in March 2008 that he had had back pain “for years” and that he had been regularly doing rehabilitation exercises which had alleviated the problem.
18.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant made a request to Tallinn Prison to be authorised to use a gym twice a week because his health had deteriorated owing to lack of movement. The prison administration refused as communication between remand prisoners had to be excluded and there were no resources to ensure the use of a gym on a cell-by-cell basis. The Ministry of Justice dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He then lodged a complaint with the Tallinn Administrative Court.
19.  By a judgment of 3 June 2008 the Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. Basing its judgment on the medical documents, the court found that there was no evidence that access to a gym was imperative for the treatment of his back pain. The applicant had been advised to do rehabilitation exercises, but these could also be done in the cell and exercise yard.
20.  On 21 October 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. It noted, however, that the applicant had been referred to a rehabilitation specialist, and that if this doctor had concluded that the applicant needed regular rehabilitation exercise for his treatment the prison administration would have had to ensure the necessary conditions for this activity.
21.  The applicant did not appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
22.  On 26 November 2008 the applicant made a request to Tallinn Prison to be ensured the possibility of doing his exercises. The prison administration dismissed his request.
23.  On 15 January 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Justice that he had been kept in conditions that damaged his health and was unable to do exercises recommended by the doctor.
24.  On 27 March 2009 the Ministry of Justice dismissed his complaint.
25.  The applicant further complained to the Tallinn Administrative Court. He asked the Administrative Court to establish that, by keeping him in poor living conditions, Tallinn Prison was acting unlawfully. By a judgment of 15 September 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. It referred, inter alia, to the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment of 21 October 2008 (see paragraph 20 above), and noted that the applicant had in the meantime undergone medical examinations by a neurologist and a rehabilitation specialist. The latter had taught him special exercises. However, the doctors had not given any instructions to the prison to ensure special conditions or equipment for the applicant, such as the use of a gym. The applicant could do the exercises recommended to him in his cell or in the exercise yard. The Administrative Court concluded that the applicant should have been able to do the exercises in the framework of the applicable prison regime. The size of the applicant’s cell – 15 square metres for six detainees – had been in line with the Internal Prison Rules (Vangla sisekorraeeskiri), according to which there had to be at least 2.5 square metres of floor space per prisoner.
26.  On 25 March 2011 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court did not question that the applicant’s health problems had probably been caused by lack of movement and exercise. However, it considered that the applicant had not proved that Tallinn Prison was responsible for the deterioration of his health. He had had the possibility of independently doing the exercises recommended by the doctors without the use of a gym or special equipment. The free floor surface of 6.5 square metres was in itself not insufficient for doing physical exercise. It was clear that not all the detainees could have used that surface at the same time but they could have agreed among themselves who wanted to do exercises and when. The same applied to the outdoor exercise yard.
27.  On 15 June 2011 the Supreme Court decided not to examine an appeal by the applicant. The copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in the file bears a “true copy” stamp dated 27 June 2011, and according to the applicant it was served on him the following day.